this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
267 points (94.4% liked)

Games

32595 readers
1271 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 year ago (4 children)

will now be turned into cosmetic-only optional "supporter packs" DLCs sold on Steam.

so...they're not removing all microtransactions

[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, the headline is just awful. The Inkbound Dev notes that they're removing all in-game microtransactions. The goal is to move away from pressuring you to spend money on microtransactions as you play, and keep them where they belong: on the store page.

The devs are doing exactly what they said. The headline is either click-bait, or a result of awful reading comprehension.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's just cosmetics, I don't see the problem. They have to make money for food in some way or another.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Didnt we used to do that by selling the game tho?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We also didn't expect ongoing development of games after they were shipped though, aside from bug fixes (sometimes even then )

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (5 children)

But.... Like..... Did we ask for that? If you cant afford to keep developing a game after shipping it..... Dont?

Just make the game, wrap it up finished, and let me buy it. It doesnt need to be a subscription, I dont need to play it for 6 years, you can move on with your life and design a different game.

Ill pay cash, just give me the whole game for crying out loud

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Ah but that requires them to finish it before releasing it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

But… Like… Did we ask for that?

Most of the gaming community did, yes. Players want servers that last forever and updates that never stop, and they'll throw a hissy fit if it costs them a cent more up front than it did 30 years ago. I'm not a fan of it either, but it's where the industry is right now.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

More importantly people don't want to buy into closed game environments. They promise of ongoing development attracts players that want that type of scale, and also allows devs to continue to eat. It's a win/win.

This is the right choice by devs. I haven't played it and honestly I probably never will, but I respect the decision.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes?

Do you not remember when a title would get released and stay in a buggy state forever rendering the game useless?

Have you never enjoyed a game so much that you wanted more content for it

I don’t want a product that’s going to go stale the second I buy it, I want a game I can play for 10 years with new content being added to keep it fresh.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Let me guess, you think movies should just be perma running live streams?

Calling a game "stale" for not having an unending stream of spectacle creep is a wild opinion. Its a game, not a lifestyle. Not ending is why so many games are shit now. Because they dont stop when theyre good, they stop when its become too bad to play, and everyone leaves.

Enjoying a game so much you want more content was, and still is, filled just fine from dlc and sequels. The best part? They dont require permanently altering what you thought was good, so if theyre trash you still have the original.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can also just not buy the game if it has micro transactions. It’s the same V logic

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

This is a non argument, and a waste of time to type

Obviously I can not buy things, congratulations, well done.

We are talking about the games being made each year, though, which are made regardless of if I buy them personally.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Well games used to not have Servers and be peer to peer they did not have season where New content got Put in or if they got New content they Split the Player Base Because they Sold the New maps, classes etc. So selling cosmetics and giving away the New classes maps etc is actually great. So that way the person not spending much gets New content and the person that love the game can Support them more. At the Same time Yes time is spend on Those skins etc and not New stuff but What would you like. A game being shut down and not being play able like battleborn? Or a game that gets New stuff but also New cosmetics?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its not a free game. Im not necessarily hating on cosmetic microtransactions, but they are microtransactions and theyve claimed to remove all of them.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

They did not make that claim. The article is just wrong. The devs said they're removing in-game monitization and only having DLC on the store page. It's functionally identical I assume, but there's less pressure on players playing the game.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Deep Rock Galactic does this and nobody cares.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's wrong with any of that

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

I think my biggest problem is that the game is still in early access. There shouldn't be any dlc imo.